Contract No. DOT HS-7-01736 Contract Amt. $522,267

I)

DOT HS-805-398

i S A F E T Y BELT USAGE AMONG DRIVERSX U S E OF CHILD RESTRAINT DEVICES, PASSENGER SAFETY

BELTS AND POSITION OF PASSENGERS IN CARSJLMOTORCYCLE HELMET USAGE

Benjamin M. Phillips

Opinion Research CorporationNorth Harrison Street

Princeton, N. J. 08540

Contract No. DOT HS-7-01736Contract Amt. $522,267

May 1980FINAL REPORT

This document is available to the U.S. public through theNational Technical Information Service,

Springfield, Virginia 22161

Prepared ForU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationWashington, D.C. 20590

(I

This document is disseminated under the sponsorshipof the Department of Transportation in the interestof information exchange. The United States Govern-ment assumes no liability for its contents or usethereof.

Technical R*pcrt Documentation Pag*

1. Report No.

DOT-HS-805 398

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Cotalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

I Safety Belt Usage Among DriversII Use of Child Restraint Devices, Passenger Safety

Belts, etc.I I I Motorcycle Helmet Usage

5. Report Dote

May, 1980

6. Performing Orgoni lotion Code

21-0

7. Author't)

Benjamin M. Phi 11ips

8. Performing Orgoniiotion Report No.

51*959. Performing Orfani lotion Nam* and Addreu

Opinion Research CorporationNorth Harrison StreetPrinceton, NJ 085*0

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11, Controet or Grant No.

DOT-HS-7-01736

12. Sponsoring Agency Nome and Address

U.S. Department of TransportationNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationResearch and DevelopmentWashington, D.C. 20510

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

FINAL REPORTMay 1980

4. Sponsoring Agency Code

IS. Suppiementory Notes

16. Abstroct

NHTSA.This report presents findings from three observation studies conducted for

Safety Belt Usage Among Drivers: The purpose of this study was to continue to monitorthe use or non-use of safety belts by drivers in 19 U.S. cities. A total of 159,8*2observations, collected during November 1977-November 1979, form the basis of thisreport. The study shows a declining use of safety belts by drivers. During 1979, theaverage usage rate was 10.9%. This compares with an average usage rate of 13% in 1978,Use of Child Restraint Devices, Passenger Safety Belts and Position of Passengers inCars: The main objectives were to assess the use of restraint devices forsmall children and to monitor belt usage by sub-teen, teen and adult

infants andpassengers. Also,

to determine the extent of any "out of position seating" problem for all unrestrainedpassengers. Findings are based on a total of 29,168 observations collected in 19 U.S.cities during July-December 1979- Use of restraint devices for infants arid small chil-dren and safety belts by passengers are at relatively low levels. *5-3% of infants anc8.7% of small children were observed to be in child restraint seats. The percent ofother passengers wearing a safety belt were: small children (2%), sub-teens (3.3%),teens (3.7%) and adults (6.9%). Motorcycle Helmet Usage: The main purpose was toascertain the use of helmets by drivers and passengers of motorcycles in 19 U.S. citiesFindings are based on 10,039 observations collected from May-September 1979. In citieswith helmet laws, 97.5% of drivers and 96.5% of passengers used helmets. In citieswith no or only limited laws, only 51.7% of drivers and *6.7% of passengers usedhelmets.

17. Key Words

Safety belt usage, shoulder harness, seatbelts, automatic system, usage, use-induc-i nq . drivers, oassenaers. restraint

motorcycle

Safety belt usbelts, automating, drivers, passengers, restrdevices, child restraint seats,helmets.

, automatic system, g ,drivers, passengers, restraintes child restraint

18. Distribution Stotement

Document is available to the U.S.public through The National TechnicalInformation Service, Springfield,Virginia 22161

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Poges

S6

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of form and completed page is authorized

i

METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

AppraxhMt* CfMMnims to Motile Miturt t

S«a*aj Mfcta Ye. l a m Mat t * ky

IEM6TN

T. FMSyaaal

Apprgxiaatg Cu«*rti«M Iran Metric Moiurts

WkM Tia I H » ••Mot* kr Ta fiaf

LEM6TH

k>II«•mi

fc2

» l

YO*ad1

a t

•>

M »TbapH o tc

pt

• • •* *y d 1

* l m > 2 .M leuct l rUnilK of Waivhu> and %

tackmlaatyard*mila*

aquare rndia*aquaralaat•qusra yardssquaramila*acn*

ounca*pound*than tan*

12000 Ib)

tsaspoaastablaspooasfluid owes*cup*pint*quart*gallon*cubic laalcubic yard*

• 2 *300.11 *

AREA

uOJM0.12.60.4

MASS (mifkt)

2t0.46O.S

VOLUME

616300.240.470363.10.030.7*

TEMPERATURE (oxact)

FaNanhaii•amparalura

1. f it oaiac «tk«cttuasi0m%. Ptica * 2 .

. /9 I . IWsubmctiag321

cuovm^Hiim iml mots (teiailmf tM25. SO Cauluu No. Cl 3.10:286.

cantimatarsm a u »kifamatars

•quara coniimatarsaquara matara

aquaramalarssquaia kilomatars

bactaraa

gramskilogramsloon

millilitarsanllilitaramillilitarslitarslilarilitarslilaracubic matarscubic mstars

Calsiustamparaiura

bfctk. M>v N85 M i u . Publ.

cmcmmkm

cm1

m2

ar1

ha

«flt

mlmlml1111m1

w1

"C

296.

8

"a

"akihanatars

0.040.43.31.1

AREA

Syafwl

iaia•t

^ s _ S

cm1

™ I

«gt

ml

I

I

I

°c

aquara cantimatar*aquara mataraaquara kilcmsiars

0.1*

u0.4

hactaraa 110.000 m'l 2.6

kitagram*uana* (1000 kg)

millilitar*lilaralitarslitar*cubic nataracubic matars

MASS (wtiikt)

0.036

1.1

VOLUME

0.032.11.06•.26

361.3

TEMPERATURE (oiael)

squara inckas

squara yards

squara milas

acras

ouaca*poundsskon ton*

fluid ouncas

pintsquarts

gallonscubic laatcubic yards

ia 2

Y* 1

mi

«Ib

II«pt• t

*•'h-yd1

C*4*iusd 32)

fakrankail•ratm

-= m~ 6

-40 o |*o go I . M O too tool

I • t ' i ' ' i ' 1 • I ' t 1 ' i 1 h' S ' I ' i' ' i ' V f- 4 0 - t o A tO HO 00 00 100-40

•c|

FORFWORn

This report presents findings from three observation studies conductedby Opinion Research Corporation under a contract with the NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration.

The report is organized into three sections, Each section includesthe following:

• Introduction and Methodology• Summary0 Detailed Findings

Study findings are presented in the following order:

1 Safety Belt Usage Among Drivers:Survey of Cars in the Traffic Population

II Use of Child Restraint Devices, PassengerSafety Belts, and Position of Passengersin Cars

III Motorcycle Helmet Usage

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

II

III

Safety Belt Usage Among Drivers:Survey of Cars in the Tra f f i c Population

Int roduct ion: Background and ObjectivesMethodologySummary

Detailed Quanti tat ive FindingsSafety Belt Usage By:

A l l DriversType of SystemModel YearSex and Age of DriverRegion of CountryCityWheel base (A l l model years)Wheel base (1976-1980 models)Manufacturer (A l l model years)Manufacturer (1976-1980 models)Manufacturer (Trend data)Type of RoadWeekday vs. Weekend and by Weather ConditionsFour LocationsDay vs. Night Usage

Safety Belt Usage By Car Series:American MotorsPlymouthDodgeChryslerFordMercuryLincolnChevroletOldsmobilePontiacBuickCadillacForeign Models

Use of Child Restraint Devices, PassengerSafety Bel ts, and Position of Passengers in Cars

Introduction and MethodologySummary

Detailed FindingsPercentage of Cars with Passengers by Age GroupsRestraint and Seat Position Data:

InfantsSmall ChildrenSub-TeensTeensAdults

Motorcycle Helmet UsageIntroduct ion, Methodology, Summary

Detailed FindingsMotorcycle Drivers and PassengersMoped Drivers and Passengers

v i ii xx ixv Li1

24567891011121314151616

18192021222324252627282930

31a31b333536

37-3940-4243-4546-4849-515355

56-5859

I

Safety Belt Usage Among Drivers:

Survey of Cars in the Traffic Population

vii

INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Background

I t is generally recognized that the u t i l i za t ion of the safety belts alreadyin passenger cars would constitute the most cost-effective single measureto reduce fa ta l i t i es and injuries in motor vehicle crashes.

Although lap belts were required in passenger vehicles as early as 1964and lap and shoulder belts were required in 1968 models, their rate ofusage was discouraging low. In an attempt to increase wearing rates,NHTSA established a requirement for light-and-buzzer warning systems for1972 and 1973 model cars. The "use-inducing" warning systems i n i t i a l l yincreased belt usage from about 20 percent to approximately 40 percent.Unfortunately, after about 2 years, belt usage in these cars had decreasedto former levels (20 percent). Shoulder belts were detachable in thesesystems, and were used less than 5 percent of the time.

Requirements for 1974-1977 systems were changed, making the shoulder harnesspermanently attached to the lap belt so that i t would be used when the lapbelt was used. Secondly, the shoulder belt was put on an extensible reelto allow greater freedom of movement and enhance comfort.

In addition to the light-and-buzzer system, a starter interlock (designedto prevent starting of the engine), and a sequential logic (to preventcircumvention of the system), were required for the 1974 model cars. NHTSAstudies of belt usage in 19 c i t ies indicated that there was a dramaticincrease in usage in interlock-equipped cars. I n i t i a l l y , usage was about75 percent but, due to many factors, usage in these cars decreased to about30-35 percent by 1976. Factors associated with this reduction of belt usageinclude ease of system defeat; discomfort and inconvenience of belts; andpublic resentment of interlocks. These same factors, no doubt, also playeda signif icant role leading to Congressional action that prohibits NHTSA fromrequiring interlock and continuous buzzer safety belt systems. As a result ,1975-1977 model cars are equipped with a warning system that consists of a"fasten seat belt" l igh t that illuminates for 4-8 seconds after the ignit ionis turned on, and a buzzer that sounds for 4-8 seconds i f the driver does nothave his belt buckled. Limited data in cars equipped with this warning systemduring 1976 indicates that belt usage was about 25 percent.

In 1976, manufacturers began instal l ing single retractor belt systems ratherthan the retractor systems, and most 1976 and newer model cars were equippedwith these systems. As compared with the earl ier restraint systems, thenewer systems have been found to have signif icant ly more problems withaccessibil i ty and the buckling of the latch plate.

IX

Objectives

NHTSA has sponsored several studies in the past which have been directedto observe and record belt usage by drivers in cars equipped with differentwarning and hardware systems in 19 c i t ies . The purpose of the currentresearch ef for t is to continue observing and recording belt usage fora period of 26 months (November 1977-December 1979) in these same 19ci t ies to determine the effectiveness of various older, as well as newer,safety belt systems in increasing belt usage.

Specific Objectives of This Study Are:

1. To continue to monitor safety belt usage rates bydrivers in a l l model year cars (Model years 1964 through 1980)

2. Analyze usage data by:

Type of belt systemAge and sex of driverModel year of carRegion of countryType of roadMonth of yearCar make and model

In addition to observing and recording safety belt usage at primary roadintersections and freeway exi t sites in the 19 c i t ies , the study wasdesigned to observe safety belt usage: (1) in rural areas; and (2) on threemajor turnpikes - - Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Florida for a period of12 months. The primary purpose of the Turnpike Study was to measure daytimevs. nighttime safety belt usage among drivers.

METHODOLOGY

This study on safety belt usage is a follow-up to earl ier studies ofthis type conducted for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(NHTSA). In the current study, safety belt usage was monitored on acontinuous basis over a 26-month period (November 1977-December 1979)by observing drivers of passenger cars as they stopped for a red l igh tat t ra f f i c intersections in each of 19 major U.S. c i t i es . Only passengervehicles of 1964 and later model years were observed.

To meet survey objectives, the research design called for a number oftasks. The major tasks, in addition to the analysis and preparation ofthis report, were:

Sample designTrain four ful l - t ime observersCollect observation dataPeriodic f ie ld checks by supervisory personnelVerify license plate numbers through the respectivestate DMV's (Department of Motor Vehicles)

Sample Design - - 19-City Study

The research design detailed below was developed in response to the NHTSArequirement that direct observation of safety belt usage be carried out.

The 19 c i t ies to be covered by the survey are the same ci t ies observedin past NHTSA studies of safety belt usage. A regional breakdown of the19 c i t ies is presented below:

Northeast South

New York, N.Y. Atlanta, Ga.Boston, Mass. Miami, Fla.Providence, R.I. Dallas, Tex.Pittsburgh, Pa. Houston, Tex.Baltimore, Md. New Orleans, La.

Birmingham, Ala.

North Central West

Chicago, 111. Los Angeles, Cal.Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn. San Francisco, Cal.Fargo, N.D.-Moorhead, Minn. San Diego, Cal.

Phoenix, Ariz.Seattle, Wash.

The 19 c i t ies were purposively selected, and probability sampling withineach of the c i t ies was undertaken in order to select t ra f f i c sites thatwould provide representative and cost-effective data.

The major aim of the sample design was to allow for the estimation ofthe proportion of automobile drivers on the road who were wearingtheir safety belts.

X I .

NHTSA specified that, for each of the 19 c i t ies in the survey, two primaryroad intersections and one freeway dxit be selected for each month of theobservation period, so that over the complete contract period these siteswi l l provide aggregate data that is representative of the c i ty .

For each c i ty area (the corporate c i t y , along with the contiguous suburbanareas), detailed road maps were used. Each map was subdivided into a>mutually exclusive and exhaustive system of square grid areas.

The square grids on each map were then carefully examined and classifiedas being one of three stratum: (1) squares in open country areas contain-ing few or no primary roads running through them; (2) squares containingone or more freeway exi ts; and (3) squares containing primary roads butno freeway exits.

Those squares in the f i r s t group were assigned a zero probability ofbeing selected into the sample. The sqiiares in the second and thirdgroups were then ordered in a serpentine fashion, and 22 primary roadsquares and 11 freeway exit squares were systematically selected. Thiss t ra t i f i ca t ion procedure was carried out in order to ensure two differenttypes of t ra f f i c - - high-speed automobiles exiting freeways, and slowermoving t ra f f i c on primary urban and suburban roads.

The basic sample design called for observers to collect data at a t ra f f i cintersection in two of the primary road grids for each of the 26 observa-tional months and in one freeway exi t grid each month. In order to reducethe amount of time the observer must spend traveling between t ra f f i cobservation sites, we grouped the 33 selected squares into 11 t r ip le ts(one freeway and two primary road squares,) based on the cr i ter ion thatthe three locations be as close as possible to each other in any givenmonth.

This selection procedure ensured a good geographical spread of observationsites.

Several primary road intersections and/or freeway exits were designatedas el ig ib le for observation in each selected square. At the beginningof each month, the observers were furnished with a l i s t of potentialt ra f f i c observation sites and they proceeded to determine whether thef i r s t s i te on the l i s t was appropriate as an observation point. I f i twas not, they examined the second site and so on unti l a viable inter-section or freeway exit was located in the grid square.

Criteria for this stage of site selection included: (a) safety of theobserver with regard to the t ra f f i c flow; (b) crime rate in the area;(c) a t ra f f i c volume heavy enough to allow collection of suff icientobservations; (d) the incidence of buses and trucks in the observationlane; (e) no road construction or repair work; and ( f ) no factors, suchas new car dealers or shopping centers nearby, that might bias thedata collected at the s i te . Upon selecting a primary road intersection,the observer gathered data from the corner which was most cost effective,in the sense that i t allowed for the greatest number of observations per hour.

xi i

Sample Design - - Rural Sites

In response to NHTSA's request to carry out direct observation of safetybelt usage in rural areas, a sample of towns in the v ic in i ty of eachof the 19 c i t ies was drawn. The f i r s t step in the rural observationsample design was to l i s t a l l towns under 2,500 population ( in 1970),and a l l towns with a 1970 population,between 2,500 and 5,000 that werewithin 50 miles of the central c i ty . A simple random sample of townswith less than a 2,500 population was selected. This was also done fortowns with a population between 2,500 and 5,000. For each month of ruralobserving, the observer was provided with the name and location of twotowns, one of which was used for rural observation during that month.The observer was responsible for determining i f a town offered anysuitable sites for observing, and which site in town to select. Anecessary condition for observation was that the observation site beguarded by a t ra f f i c signal. Another condition was that the observa-t ion site not be on a road that draws t ra f f i c entirely from a nearbylarge town, c i t y , or freeway. For each c i t y , half of the rural locationsin which observations were recorded were towns with under a 2,500 population,and half were towns with a population between 2,500 and 5,000. Theobservation period was five hours per month, for a 12-month period.

Sample Design - - Turnpikes

Three major U.S. turnpikes were selected for this special study ofsafety belt usage:

Massachusetts TurnpikePennsylvania TurnpikeFlorida Turnpike

Each of the turnpikes met the requirement of having booths where driversstop to get a to l l t icket before entering the turnpike and had adequatel ight ing so as to conduct nighttime observations. ORC obtained permissionfrom the turnpike authorities to conduct the observation studies.

At each turnpike, an ORC observer recorded and observed safety belt usageby drivers for four (4) hours on one day each month, for a period of 12months. The 4 hours of observation were divided as follows: 2 hoursbefore dark and 2 hours after dark. Only drivers entering the turnpikestopping to get a to l l t icket were observed. Drivers exiting turnpikeswere jiot observed because some people unbuckle their belts to get outmoney~Tor t o l l charges.

Observer Training

In October 1977, four ful l - t ime f ie ld observers were assigned to a f u l lweek of training at ORC's Princeton, New Jersey headquarters. Theprogram was under the direction of the ORC Project Director assisted bytwo individuals designated as f ie ld supervisors. The CTM for NHTSAassisted in the training program. The f i r s t phase of the trainingincluded a two-hour classroom instruction period, during which the

xiii

research objectives and data collection materials were explained. Eachobserver was provided with a 20page training manual which covered proceduresfor site selection, traffic observation, and recording of data.

The second phase of the training program was carried out in the fieldunder the direction of ORC supervisory personnel. These sessions wereconducted in Trenton, New Jersey over a period of four and one-halfdays for at least six hours per day and consisted of training in siteselection and data collection methods.

Observers collected and recorded safety belt data on a trial basis at anumber of traffic intersections and freeway exit sites in the City. Eachof the four field observers was "certified" as being ready to collect"real data" at the end of the training session. When a field observerhad to be replaced by a new observer, the replacement was trained by anORC supervisor in his "home base" city, in the same manner as describedabove.

Data Collection Procedures

Each observer was assigned either four or five cities which he traveledto each month for a period of 26 months. Three days were spent in eachcity -- two days for observing at a primary road site and one day ata freeway exit site. In each city, the assignment of observations wasbalanced by day of week and time of day. The collection of safety beltusage data was scheduled so that each month the field person observedfor 16 hours in each city. Of the total 16 hours, six were allocatedto a freeway exit site and five to each of the two primary road sites.During months when observers were given rural area assignments or otherspecial assignments, certain modifications were made in the number of hoursto be spent on the basic safety belt usage study*

The data collection assignments were rotated and covered four time seg-ments -- 7 a.m. to 10 a.m., 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., and4 p.m. to 7 p.m. During winter months, visibility problems necessitatedshortening the first and last time periods.

Observers were required to collect data on the second car in line at atraffic light and then proceed to collect data on the third, fourth, etc.,cars when time permitted. When only one car stopped at the light, heobserved that car. (A copy of the observation form is appended to thisreport).

Observers wore highly visible safety vests. A sign, "Traffic Survey"printed on the back of a clipboard in English and Spanish, and a DOTbooklet on road signs to be used as a handout when needed, facilitatedthe process.

xiv

Field Checks by Supervisory Personnel

Over the course of the study, each of the four observers were visitedby an ORC supervisor at least eight times. During each v i s i t thesupervisor spent two days observing alongside the f ie ld observer at aprimary road site or a freeway exi t . At the end of each day, thesupervisor would ta l l y his data and compare i t with the data collectedby the observer. These f ie ld checks not only helped to ensure accuratedata collection but served as a morale booster for the observer.

Verif ication of Data Through DMV Search

The "unvalidated" usage data collected by the f ie ld observers were sentto ORC on a monthly basis. Each month the data were keypunched oncards and the data transferred to computer tapes. After several monthsof data had accumulated, the license plate numbers were sent to therespective state DMV's (Department/Division of Motor Vehicles) forfurther vehicle information, including car make, model year, and VIN(Vehicle Identi f icat ion Number). Only cars whose observed make andrecorded make agreed were retained in the "validated data" f i l e .Using the Vindicator Program furnished by the Highway Loss DataInst i tu te, Washington, D.C., data were further analyzed according tocr i te r ia available from the VIN code, such as wheelbase length andspecific car series.

A total of 159,842 verif ied observations, collected during the periodNovember 1977 through November 1979, form the basis of this report.

XV

SUMMARY

Safety Belt Usage Among Drivers *

During the period, January - November 1979, safety belt usage for 1964-1980 model cars averaged 10.9% (8.5% for lap and shoulder belt , plus2.4% for lap belt only). This usage rate is lower than the averageusage of 13% in 1978.

Among different types of restraint systems, VW's automatic systemscores an outstanding lead on usage (79.1%). This compares with ausage rate of 12.5% for cars with the combination bel t , 12.3% for carswith the two-piece bel t , and 8.1% for those which include only the lapbelt .

Belt usage in newer models (1976-1980) is lower than usage in oldermodels (1972-1973). This may indicate that the 4-8 second buzzer andl igh t warning system is not having any impact on belt usage. Also,i t may suggest that there are more comfort and convenience problemsassociated with belt systems in the more recent models.

Usage rates are higher for women than men (14.2% vs. 11.5%), and higherin the West (18.3%) than in other regions.

Among 19 c i t i es , usage is highest in Seattle (24.5%) and lowest in Fargo/Moorhead (4.8%).

Among late model cars (1976-1980), usage is highest for sub-compact cars(18.5%), next highest for compact cars (11.1%), and lowest for inter-mediate (9.5%) and fu l l -s ize (8.6%) cars.

Also, among recent models, foreign cars generally score higher in termsof belt usage than the four leading American makes.

Safety belt usage was measured on turnpikes and rural roads as well asin metropolitan areas. The usage results:

Turnpikes 17.6%Freeway exits 13.6%Primary roads 11.8%Rural roads 6.9%

Turnpikes were covered primarily to measure daytime vs. nighttime usage.The results are as follows:

Day 17.9%Night 17.2%

* Usage data for dr ivers is based on observations conducted for25 months (November 1977 - November 1979) unless speci f ied otherwisein the report .

xvii

DETAILED QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS

The primary body of data reported in this section is based onthe following number of verif ied observations:

All Model Year (1964-1980) 159,842

Newer Cars (1976-1980 Model Year) 73,581

Throughout the report, tests of s tat is t ica l significance(at the 95-in-100 confidence level) have been applied. Thus,any statements to the effect that "A" is larger (or smaller)than "B" may be taken as having met the test of s tat is t ica lsignificance.

Safety Belt Usage by Drivers

In the 19-city observation study, safety belt use by drivers betweenJanuary and November, 1979 averaged 10.9% (8.5% for lap and shoulderbelt and 2.4% for lap belt only). During the 12 months of 1978, averagebelt usage by drivers was 13% (8.8% for lap and shoulder belt and 4.2%for lap belt only). During the period November 1977 to June 1978, theaverage belt usage rate was 14.1%. A declining use of safety belts bydrivers in private passenger cars is evident and can be seen in Table 1opposite.

Usage by City

In the 19 ci t ies surveyed, safety belt usage among drivers is highestin Seattle (24.5%) and lowest in Fargo/Moorhead (4.!

Table 6

Seattle

San Francisco

San Diego

Phoenix

Atlanta

Los Angeles

Minn.-St. Paul

Baltimore

Boston

Pittsburgh

Miami

Houston

Birmingham

Providence

New York

New Orleans

DallasChicago

Fargo-Moorhead

USAGE

%Lap andShoulder

16.2

12.4

10.9

10.3

11.0

9.7

8.8

9.3

9.2

9.1

7.4

7.7

7.6

7.5

6.3

6.1

4.7

4.9

3.3

BY CITY

%Lap Belt

Only

8.3

5.8

7.0

6.4

5.0

5.0

4.3

2.8

2.7

1.9

3.5

2.6

2.3

1.6

2.3

2.4

2.9

1.9

1.5

%

Total

24.5

18.217.916.716.014.7

13.1

12.1

11.9

1T.0

10.9

10.3

9.9

9.1

8.6

8.5

7.6

6.8*4.8

N

(8,803)

(8,084)

(8,618)

(11,859)

(9,192)

(8,380)

(7,792)

(7,804)

(6,816)

(8,397)

(8,199)

(11,291)

(9,883)

(4,811)

(6,970)

(9,594)

(10,122)

(5,749)

(6,478)

(All Model Years)

n

Usage By Manufacturer (All Model Years)

Among all model years observed (1964-1980), foreign cars score higherin terms of belt usage than do the four leading American makes. Usageranges from 34.4% for the V.W. Rabbit to 10.0% for Ford.

Table 9

VW Rabbit (Active)

Misc. Foreign

Toyota

Datsun

VW Other

AMC

Chrysler

GM

Ford

USAGE BY

Both On

33.6

20.5

16.9

15.3

12.6

8.77-3

6.3

5.9

MANUFACTURER

Lap BeltOnly

.8

2.3

2.52.0

1.6

4.95.34.0

4.1

TotalOn

34.4

22.8

19.4

17-3

14.2

13.6

12.6

10.3

10.0

N

(1,311)

(10,515)

(5,955)

(4,769)

(6,535)

(3,672)

(16,741)

(72,412)

(36,417)

(All Model Years)

12

Usage by Manufacturer (1976-1980 Model Years)

The safety belt usage scores and rankings for 1976-1980 model carsare shown in the table below.

Table 10

VW Rabbit (Active)

Misc. Foreign

VW Other

Toyota

Datsun

Chrysler

AMC

GM

Ford

USAGE BY MANUFACTURER

Both On

34.7

20.7

21.4

17.514.9

11.4

10.3

8.8

8.0

Lap BeltOnly

1 .0

1.0

.31.0

.8

• 91.0

1.1

.9

TotalOn

35.7

21.7

21.7

18.5

15.7

12.3

11.3

9.9

8.9

N

(1,049)

(5,474)

(576)

(3,760)

(2,704)

(6,746)

(1,305)

(35,510)

(16,476)

(1976-1980 Model Years)

Usage In Foreign Cars vs. U.S. Sub-Compacts

The higher belt usage in foreign cars is not necessarily a functionof their generally smaller size and l ighter weight. The averageusage rate for 16 foreign cars (1976-1980 models) is 20.6%. Bycomparison, the average usage rate for 13 American sub-compact carsof the same model years is 12.2%.

13

Usage by Manufacturer (Trend Data)

The average decl ine in safety be l t usage between the observation period(November 1977-June 1978) and (January 1979-November 1979) noted e a r l i e r ,i s again apparent when usage data i s analyzed by manufacturer. Withthe exception of the VW Rabbit, a l l of the fore ign makes and the fourAmerican makes show lower be l t usage during the current period (January1979-November 1979) than during the e a r l i e r period (November 1977-June 1978).

Table 11

USAGE BY MANUFACTURER

VW Rabbit

Misc. Foreign

Toyota

Datsun

VW Other

AMC

Chrysler

GM

Ford

Nov.'77-June '78

1

32.8

24.6

20.9

17.9

15.0

15.1

14.1

11.9

11.5

Jan. '78-Dec. '79

1

32.4

23.7

20.117.8

13.9

14.1

13.4

10.8

10.4

Jan.'79-Nov.'79

1

37.1

20.2

17.117.0

14.6

11.6

10.5

8.8

8.5

17

APPENDIX TABLES

The charts on the following pages

show safety belt usage, for 1976-

1980 model years, by models for

each manufacturer.

18

USAGE BY CAR MAKE

American Motors

Concord

Greml in

Hornet

Matador

Pacer

7.1

11.9

12.8

7.8

11.6

(127)

(295)

(281)

(103)

(481)


USAGE BY CAR MAKE

19

Plymouth

Fury

Hori zon

Satel1ite

Valiant

Volare

13.3

25.7

9.9

15.3

14.7

(75)

(175)

(345)

(137)

(1946)


20

USAGE BY CAR MAKE

Dodge

Aspen

Charger

Coronet

Dart

D i piomat

Magnum XE

Monaco/Polara

Omni

14.4

8.4

10.4

12.6

8.4

5.5

4.7

18.8

(1495)

(202)

(77)

(111)

(203)

(73)

(107)

(149)


21

USAGE BY CAR MAKE

Chrysler

Cordoba

Le Baron

Newport

New Yorker

Town S Country

6.8

10.3

8.1

5.1

(880)

(369)

(161)

(217)

(21)


* Too few cases for analysis

22

USAGE BY CAR MAKE

Ford

Custom 500

Elite

Fa i rmont

Fiesta

Ford Wagon

Granada

LTD

Maverick

Mustang

Pinto

Thunderbi rd

Torino

4.4

4.3

11.7

18.8

10.9

9-2

8.6

14.6

7.7

12.1

4.7

10.3

(45)

(277)

(1097)

(133)

(411)

(2952)

(1648)

(369)

(1325)

(1334)

(1624)

(1211)


USAGE BY CAR MAKE

23

Mercury

Bobcat

Comet

Cougar

Marqu i s

Monarch

Montego

Zephyr

15.1

11.3

4.6

8.6

9.4

14.3

12.2

(152)

(53)

(1112)

(661)

(903)

(77)

(254)


24

Lincoln

Continental

Mark Series

Versa iIles

USAGE BY CAR MAKE

3.8

5.6

9.4

(343)

(390

(53)


USAGE BY CAR MAKE

25

Chevrolet

Camaro

Capr ice

Chevelle

Chevette (Passive) —

Chevette (Active)

Citation

Corvette

Impala

Laguna

Malibu

Monte Carlo

Monza

Nova

Vega

8.0

11.4

10.6

—

11.0

6.5

3.8

11.6

0

14.6

6.8

11.2

11.7

12.5

(1719)

(2147)

(1467)

—

(1395)

(46)

(157)

(2044)

(10)

(958)

(3047)

(436)

(2361)

(457)


1/ No cases for analysis

26

USAGE BY CAR MAKE

Oldsmobile

Custom Cruiser

Cutlass

Delta 88/Dynamic

N inety-E ight

Omega

Starfire

Toronado

Vista Cruiser

13.8

10.7

11.7

8.9

12.1

14.6

10.4

8.3

(138)

(39^1)

(1276)

(845)

(331)

(82)

(134)

(36)


27

USAGE BY CAR MAKE

Pont iac

Astre

Bonnev i11e/Cata1i na

Fi rebi rd

Grand Prix

Le Mans

Phoenix

Sunbi rd

Ventura

8.1

8.3

8.7

4.8

10.8

10.0

9.4

10.7

(123)

(953)

(781)

(1577)

(434)

(120)

(341)

(205)


28

USAGE BY CAR MAKE

Buick

Apollo/Skylark

Electra

Estate Wagon

Le Sabre

Regal

Rivi era

Skyhawk

Skylark/Century

12.2

e.k

15.7

9.0

9.8

7.5

11.4

10.1

(75A)

(875)

(108)

(1065)

(650)

(161)

(149)

(1403)


USAGE BY CAR MAKE

29

Cadi 1 lac

Other Cadillacs 8.9 (2210)

Seville 11.5 (548)


30

USAGE BY CAR MAKE

Foreign Models

Arrow

Aud i

Colt

Datsun

Fiat

Honda

Mazda

Mercedes

MG

Opel

Porsche

Rabbit (Active)

Rabbit (Passive)

Subaru

Toyota

Volvo

Other VW's

11.7

23.9

20.5

15.7

18.3

25.6

17.5

15.9

7.6

9-9

21.3

35.7

80.8

20.6

18.5

27.9

21.7

(264)

(309)

(516)

(2704)

(492)

(1850)

(269)

(371)

(79)

(162)

(164)

(1049)

(401)

(214)

(3760)

(501)

(576)


31a

II

Use of Child Restraint Devices, PassengerSafety Belts,and Position of Passengers in Cars

31b

INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

Introduction

A recent study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administra-t ion (NHTSA) indicates that approximately 1,000 children up to age 5 areki l led and 100,000 injured e^ery year in auto accidents. 1 / I t isrecognized that the u t i l i za t ion of properly designed chilcT restraintsystems would be an important step toward reducing fa ta l i t ies and injuriesto the under 5 years old passengers in motor vehicle crashes. FederalMotor Vehicle Safety Standard 213, the safety standard relating to childrestraints, was revised in 1980. Testing procedures for these deviceswould be upgraded to require dynamic (in-motion) crash tests with anthro-pometric dummies, simulating a 3-year-old child and 6-month-old infant.

The main objectives of this study was to assess the current use of childrestraint devices for infants (up to 1 year) and for children (1 to 4years) in private passenger cars. In addition, the study was designedto ascertain the use or non-use of safety belts by a l l passengers and toobserve the seat positions and specific posture of a l l unrestrainedpassengers.

Methodology

This observation study of passengers was conducted in the same 19 metro-politan areas and used basically the same sampling design as the onebeing used for the Safety Belt Usage Study Among Drivers (Contract DOT-HS-7-01736). During the period July-December 1979, the study amongdrivers was modified so as to allow for both the observation of restraintusage by passengers as well as drivers. To accomplish th is , ORC f ie ldpersonnel spent one day each month at a sample si te location observingon the Driver Study and two days observing for the Child Restraint andOccupant Position Study.

ORC Field Personnel

The same four ful l - t ime f ie ld personnel that worked on the Driver Studyreceived special training for the Passenger Study under the direction ofORC supervisory personnel. Field personnel traveled to ORC's Princeton,N.J. headquarters and received instructions on how to observe and recordthe information required for the Passenger Study. One phase of thistraining included eight hours spent at a local t ra f f i c intersection soas to obtain actual f i e ld experience under the direction of ORC supervisorypersonnel.

y National Traff ic Safety Newsletter, April 1979, page 11.

32

In training for the passenger Study, emphasis was given to the observationand recording of data on child restraint devices since this was animportant part of the study. Field personnel were provided with picturesof the various types of child restraint devices currently on the market.Each picture was identified as one that was "proper" or "not proper."With this information in hand, field personnel were instructed to: (1)record on the observation form that the child was in a child restraintdevice if he considered it to be one of the "proper" types and (2)record on the observation form that the/child was not in a child restraintdevice if he considered it to be one that was not a "proper" type ofseat. Field personnel were instructed to further indicate on theobservation form whether or not the device was secured by the adultsafety belt.

Data Collection Procedures

Data collection included the observing of cars with passengers withpriority being given to cars containing infants and small children asthe cars stopped for lights at traffic intersections. Data collectedfor each passenger included: age, sex, seated position, posture (sitting,standing, etc.), location (on seat or floor), position of occupant'sknees (facing forward, to the left or right of center), and restraintusage (secured by child restraint device or adult safety belt). (A copyof the observation form will be found in the Appendix.)

The tables that follow indicate, for each group, the percentage of passengersin one of five positions. A description of each of the five positionsis given below:

1. On Seat: Sitting, Back Supported:

"Passenger is sitting on the seat with his/her back supported by theback of the seat."

2. On Seat: Sitting, Back Not Supported:

"Passenger is sitting on the seat (usually the edge of the seat)and his/her back is not touching the back of the seat."

3. On Seat:- Standing, Kneeling, Lying:

"Passenger is on the seat, but is either standing, kneeling,or lying."

4. On Floor:

"Passenger is either sitting, standing, kneeling, or lying onthe floor of the car."

5. On Passenger's Lap:

"Passenger is either sitting, standing, kneeling, or lying onanother passenger's lap."

33

SUMMARY

Child Restraint and Seat Position Study

Among 16,359 cars observed in the Driver Study during July-December1979, less than one percent had an infant passenger. The percentage ofcars with passengers in four other age categories were: small children(4.3%); sub-teens (4.9%); teens (6.4%); and adults (28.1%).

The Passenger Study, based on 29,168 observations, shows that seatlocations of passengers varies by age. Majorities of adults (84%),teens (66.7%), and infants (64.4%) were observed to be front seatoccupants, while majorit ies of sub-teens (61%), and small children (56%)were observed to be rear seat occupants.

Use of chi ld restraint devices was observed for infants and smallchildren. Safety belt usage was measured for small children, sub-teen,teen, and adult passengers. The usage results:

Restrained by:

InfantsSeat secured bySeat not secured

Small ChildrenSeat secured bySeat not secured

Sub-Teens

Teens

Adults

carby

carby

beltcar belt

beltcar belt

Child Seat

22.1%23.2%

4.5%4.2%

Car Safety Belt

- -

2.0%

3.3%

3.7%

6.9%

Seat position and posture were observed for passengers in each of thef ive age groups to determine, for those not restrained, the proportionswho were in a normal seat position and those who were not properlyseated. The results:

Not Restrained

Normal Seat Position y Out of Position 2/

Infants 0% 54.7%

Small Children 22.4% 66.9%

Sub-Teens 54.8% 41.9%

Teens 88.6% 7.7%

Adults 90.3% 2.8%

y Passenger s i t t ing on seat with back supported

2/ Passenger s i t t ing on seat with back not supported and those whowere either standing, kneeling, or lying on the seat or f loor.Also included are those s i t t i ng on the f loor of the car.

35

DETAILED FINDINGS

The primary body of data reported in this section is based on thefollowing number of passenger observations:

Infants (Under 1 year) 706

Small Children (1 to 4 years) 3,218

Sub-Teens (5 to 12 years) 3,229

Teens (13 to 19 years) 4,539

Adults (20 years and over) 17,476

The data that follows are analyzed separately for each of the above agegroups.

36

Percentage of Cars w i th Passengers by Age Groups

Among 16,359 cars observed dur ing July-December 1979 i n 19 metropo l i tanareas, less than one percent had an i n f an t passenger. The percentage ofcars w i th passengers in four other age categor ies were: small ch i ld ren(4.3%); sub-teens (4.9%); teens (6.4%); and adul ts (28.1%).

Percent o f Cars w i t h Passengers i n Five Age Groups

Total Cars

In fan ts (Under 1 yr.)

Small Ch i ld ren (1-4)

Sub-Teens (5-12) •

Teens (13-19)

Adul ts (20 and over)

Number of Passengers per Car

The tab le below shows f o r the 16,359 cars observed, what percent of thecars had 1 passenger, 2 passengers, e t c .

TOTAL CARS

Number o f Passengers:

One

Two

Three

Four or more

No passengers

TOTAL16,359

26.3%

7.0

2.7

1.5

62.5

Note: The data above comes from the Safety Bel t Usage Study AmongD r i v e r s , dur ing the period July-December 1979 and i s based on theobservat ion of every second car stopped fo r a t r a f f i c l i g h t . Thus, i ti s a representat ive sample of the incidence of passengers in cars by thef i v e age ca tegor ies . Base = 16,359 cars .

The f ind ings tha t fo l l ow are derived from a purposive sample of passengersra ther than a random sample since f i e l d personnel were ins t ruc ted togive p r i o r i t y to cars t ha t included in fan ts and small c h i l d r e n . Base = 29,168passengers.

42

Seat Positions of Small Children

Table 6 below shows the percent of all small children observed ineach of a number of specific postures (sitting, standing, kneeling,lying) by seated positions. Read as follows: among all childrenobserved, 8.7% were in a child restraint device -- 2.9% in a restraintdevice in the front of the car and 5.8% in a restraint device inthe rear of the car, etc.

Table 6

Small Children ( 1 - 4 years)Seat Positions of Small Children in Cars

In Child Restraint DeviceSecured by Car BeltNot Secured

Restrained by Car BeltOn Seat

. Sitting, Back Supported

. Sitting, Back Not Supported

. Standing

. Kneeling

. LyingOn Floor

. Standing

. Sitting

. Kneeling

. LyingOn Passenger's Lap

Sitting on Front Seat --Hands on Dashboard

64 2.0% (NA) (NA)

72167646017246

45350325

22.4%21.0%14.4%5.3%1.4%

14.0%1.6%1.1%.1%

3582273177419

27910

11792

1 0/

. 1 la

.0%

.9%

.3%

.6%

.8%

.3%*%0%

3634491439827

42641315

n. 3%14.07*4.5%3.0%.8%

13.2%1.3%1.0%.1%

300

23

9.3% 264 8.2% 36 i v*I . I 10

.7% 23

N280

144136

TOTAL..8.7%

4.5%4.2%

N945242

FRONT2.9%

1.6%1.2%

N186

9294

REAR5.8%

2.9%2.9%

45

Seat Positions of Sub-Teens (5-12 years)

Table 9 shows the percent of a l l sub-teen passengers observed in each ofa number of specif ic postures ( s i t t i n g , standing, kneeling, lying) byseated postures. Read as fol lows: among 3,229 sub-teen passengers,3.3% were restrained by an adult safety belt — 2.7% were wearing thebel t while seated in the front of the car and .6% were wearing the beltwhile seated in the rear of the car, etc.

Table 9

Sub-Teens ( 5 - 1 2 years)

Seat Postions of Sub-Teens

RESTRAINED BY ADULT BELT

NOT RESTRAINED

ON SEAT

Sitting, back supportedSitting, back not supportedKneelingStandingLyi ng

ON FLOOR

• Standing• Sitting• Kneeling• Lying

ON PASSENGER'S LAP 19 -6% 13 A% 6 -n

N05

24

7708651037918

18443385

TOTAL3.3%

96.7 1

54.8%26.8%3.2%2.4%.6%

5.7%1.3%1.2%.1%

N86

,173

87918037515

5020

FRONT2.7%

36.3 1

27.2%5.6%1.2%1.6%.1%

.2%*0.0%0.0%

N19

,951

891685662813

17943365

REAR.6%

60.4

27.6%21.2%2.0%.8%5%

5.5%1.3%1.2%.1%

47

Seat Positions of Teen Passengers (13-19 years)

Among all teenage passengers observed, 3.7% were restrained by an adultsafety belt. Although unrestrained, the large majority of teens (88.6%)were seated properly.

Table 11

Teen Passengers (13 - 19 years)

Proportions Restrained and Not Restrained

Seated, back supported Seated, back not supported

TOTAL TEEN PASSENGERS

RESTRAINED D3.7%

Other positions

JL(4,539)

( 169)

NOT RESTRAINED

88.6%FRONT

RESTRAINED Qa,

96.3% (4,370)

6.9 .8

( 167)

NOT RESTRAINED

60.1REAR

RESTRAINED

J 63.0%

2.7 .2

(2,861)

( 2)

NOT RESTRAINED 33.3%

28.5 4.2 .6

(1,509)

48

Seat Positions of Teen Passengers (13-19 years)

Table 12 shows the percent of a l l teen passengers observed in each of anumber of specific postures ( s i t t i n g , standing, kneeling, lying) byseated positions. Read as follows: among 4,539 teen passengers, 88.6%were s i t t ing with their backs supported (unrestrained) — 60.1% weres i t t ing properly in the front of the car and 28.5% were s i t t ing properlyin the rear of the car, etc.

Table 12

Teen Passengers (13 - 19 years)

Seat Postions of Teens

RESTRAINED BY

NOT RESTRAINED

ON SEAT

• Sitting,• Sitting,• Standing• Kneeling• Lying

ON FLOOR

• Sitting• Lying

ON PASSENGER'S

• Sitting'• Lying

SAFETY BELT

back supportedback not supported

LAP

I169

4,370

4,0223132111

131

52

TOTAL3.7%

96.3

88.6%6.9%

--

--

N167

2,860

2,728123213

1

2

FRONT3.7%

63.0%

60.1%2.7%

--

N.2

1,510

1,294190

8

121

32

REAR*%

33.3

28.5%4.2%

—

--

not shown because of small number of cases

50

Seat Positions of Adult Passengers (20 .years or over)

Among all adult passengers observed, 6.9% were restrained by an adultsafety belt. Nine out of ten adults (90.3%) were in a normal seatposition, but unrestrained.

Table 14

Adult Passengers (20 years and older)

Proportions Restrained and Not Restrained

I [Seated, back supported Seated, back not supported

TOTAL ADULT PASSENGERS

RESTRAINED 6.9%

[Other positions

N

(17,476)

( 1,214)

NOT RESTRAINED

FRONT90.3

93.1% (16,262)

2.6 .2

RESTRAINED 6.9% ( 1,205)

NOT RESTRAINED75.5

REAR

7 7 . 1 %

1.5 .1

(13,470)

RESTRAINED *% ( 9)

NOT RESTRAINED 16.0%

14.8 1.1 .1

( 2,792)

51

Seat Positions of Adult Passengers (20 years or over)

Table 15 shows the percent of all adult passengers observed in eachof a number of specific postures (sitting, standing, kneeling, lying)by seated positions. Read as follows: among all adult passengers,90.3% were sitting with their backs supported (unrestrained) -- 75.5%were sitting properly in the front of the car and 14.8% were in anormal seat position in the rear of the car, etc.

Table 15

Adult Passengers (20 years and older)

Seat Positions of Adults Not Restrained

RESTRAINED BY SAFETY BELT

NOT RESTRAINED

ON SEAT• Sitting, back supported• Sitting; back not supported• Lyingi Kneeling

ON LAP• Sitting• Lying

ON FLOOR

• Sitting• Lying

1

16

15

N_,214

,262

,781454123

62

31

TOTAL6.

93.

90,2,

9%

1

.3%

.6%

--

—

1

1

1

3

3

N.,205

,470

,194262

62

41

1

FRONT6

77

751

.9%

.1

.5%

.5%

—

—

N9

2,792

2,58719261

21

21

REAR*%

16.0

'14.8%1.1%

__

--

-- % not shown because of small number of cases

53

III

Motorcycle Helmet Usage

55

INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

Objective

The main purpose of t h i s observation study was to ascerta in the use ornon-use of helmets by dr ivers and passengers of motorcycles in the same19 metropol i tan areas covered in the basic Safety Belt Usage Study AmongDrivers of p r iva te passenger cars. A secondary purpose of the study wasto determine the use or non-use of helmets by d r i ve rs and passengers ofmopeds.

Methodology

In add i t ion to observing safety be l t usage among dr ivers in p r iva tepassenger cars at sampled t r a f f i c in tersect ions and freeway ex i t s ineach of 19 metropol i tan areas, the four ORC f i e l d personnel observed andrecorded, on a special form, the use or non-use of helmets by d r i ve rsand passengers on motorcycles and (hopeds as they approached in te rsec t ions .This data was obtained whi le observers were wai t ing f o r the t r a f f i cl i g h t to turn red and could return to observing safety be l t usage amongoperators of passenger cars. The study, which used the same samplingdesign as the one used fo r the Safety Bel t Usage Study Among Dr ivers ,was conducted fo r f i ve months during the period May - September, 1979.

SUMMARY

The f ind ings from th i s observation study indicates that in states thathave laws requ i r ing dr ivers and passengers of motorcycles to wear helmetsthe laws are h ighly e f f e c t i v e . In six states wi th helmet laws, 97.5% o fmotorcycle dr ivers and 96.5% of t h e i r passengers were observed to bewearing helmets in the c i t i e s surveyed. By comparison, in ten stateswi th none or only l im i t ed helmet laws, usage was only 51.7% f o r d r iversand 46.7% f o r passengers.

57


Cities in States with Mandatory HelmetLaws for All Riders

Table 2 shows, for each city, the percent of drivers and passengers ofmotorcycles who were observed to be wearing protective helmets as theyapproached traffic intersections or leaving freeway exits.

Table 2

Atlanta

Pittsburgh

Miami

Birmingham

New York Ci ty

Boston

May -

DRIVERS

£100.0

99.7

99.4

99.1

91.9

91.8

(2,440)

September 1979

PASSENGERS

1100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

89.9

94.0(459)

58


Cities in States with No or OnlyLimited Helmet Laws

Table 3 shows, for each city, the percent of drivers and passengers ofmotorcycles who were observed to be wearing protective helmets as theyapproached traffic intersections or were leaving freeway exits.

Table 3

Providence

Baltimore

Seattle

San Diego

Dallas

Fargo/Moorhead

Minneapolis/St. Paul

Phoenix

Houston

New Orleans

San Francisco

Los Angeles

Chicago

]_/ Requires all passengers

2/ Requires all passengers

May -DRIVERS

178.3

77.5

73.7

52.5

51.9

49.9

48.2

47.4

45.7

45.0

44.5

43.8

32.8

(6,011)

to wear helmets

under 18 years of

September 1979PASSENGERS

193.6 V

87.8 2/

66.3

28.6

56.6 2/

50.0 2/

37.0 2/

33.0 2/

35.6 2/

25.9 2/

34.8

31.1

22.7

(U29)

age to wear helmets

59

Mopeds

In additon to observing helmet usage by motorcyclists, data was alsocollected on helmet usage by moped drivers and passengers. The incidenceof helmet usage among moped drivers dnd passengers is well below thatfor motorcyclists. In the 19-city study, 37.5% of moped drivers and19.6% of passengers were observed to be wearing helmets over the f ive-month period. The comparable usage rates among motorcyclists were 64.9%for drivers and 61.6% for passengers.

Mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists do not appear to have any impacton moped riders. Among moped riders, helmet usage in states that havehelmet laws for motorcyclists is actually lower than in those stateswith no or only limited laws for motorcyclists.

Table 4

Percent of Moped

Total 19 cities

States with helmetfor motorcyclists

Drivers

laws

and Passengers Wearing

May - September

DRIVERS

I37.5

29.6

Helmets

1979

PASSENGERS

I19.6

10.0

States with no or limitedhelmet laws for motorcyclists 39.6 25.0

(654) (56)

* Helmet usage for each city not shown because of thelimited number of cases.

61

GEMERAL POPUUTIONOBSERVATION FORM

S149S091178

Observer

Intersection

Location No.

Day ________Date _______Month

City'

Time Started

Conditions

.AMPM

1 Daylight1 Dry

1 Primary Road

2 Freeway Exit

3 Turnpike (Night)

4 Turnpike (Day)

Tine Ended

1 City

2 Suburb

3 Rural

4 Rural

S Turnpike

1 .̂M2 PM

2 Twilight2 Rain

3 Night

3 Snow, Ice

f

•01

:o20304

OSl06

07

08

09

10

11

fl?

tUCBSB NUMBER

13|14-1

: i i:161 ' 7

13|i 1320

21***?

2324

231261

"12S|29|

30l

3X13233"41

HWNBSS AM) U P BELT1 Botfc ORZ HarnoM OH, Bait On3 Both Off

TOE OP SYSTEM1 U p $ Shouldar Cotno.Z lap $ ShooLdtr Sep.J U b Oniya Ra&bie (Pajalve)5 Rabbit (RsgiUar)6 O^her (Passive)

MAKE (HOBBLS

SEX OFDRIVER

1 Mtle

DRIVER'SACS

I IS-H2 25-493 SO*

i

!

11 i

i

i

36-j /

33

39

40

41

42

4344

45

46

47

48

49

SO

SI

325354

5556

57

58

59

60

61

62

6364

65

66

67

68

69

7071

n7374.

7376

77

78

"75SOai

LICENSE .NUMBER

HARNESS AND U P SELT

1 Both On

T O T OF SYSTEM

1 Lap 5 Shoulder Coma.! U D < Shoulder 3eo .

: Hairnn Off. Btlt OnM Up Only

: Rabbit (Regular;* Other I'Pusive)

I

1

MAKE fMODEU

Coda

SEX OFDRIVER

1 Male2 Ftafale

DRIVES'SIAGE 1

1 1%-H1 M-493 SO-

I

1

63

CHILD RESTRAINT/OCCUPANT POSITION

PASSENGER OBSERVATION FORM

51495070279

Observer

Intersection

Location No.

Day ______Date

Month

Time Started

Conditions 1 Oaylight

1 Dry

1 AM.2 PM

2 Twilight

2 Rain

City •__

•1 Primary Road

2 Freeway Exit

3 Turnpike (Night)

4 Turnpike (Day)

Time Ended

. 3 Night

3 Snow, Ice

1 City

2 Suburb

3 Rural

4 Rural

5 Turnpike

1 AM2 PM

j

01

02

03

UCEHSE HUMPEB

04 |

05

06;

07

0809

10

11

12

13

14

15

I FTTJ18

19

2Q21

J22JJSTJ24

25]26j

27

TOTALPASSENGERS

(Write"In

Number)

AGE GROUP1 Infant2 Small Child3 Sub-Teen4 Teen5 Adult

! i

SEX1 Male

2 Female

SEAT1 Front

2 Back

i

! !28|

29 ;

30

31 ; ; ! ;

32 1

33 : :

POSITION1 oHver

SideZ Center3 Outboard

POSTURE

2 Stand3 Kneel« L ie

j

!

LOCATION1 Seat2 Floor3 Lap

OCCUPANT'SBACK

2 Door3 Person4 Non Sup.

OCCUPANT'SKNEES

1 Forward2 R.C.3 t.C.4 Rear

1

IN CHILDRES.?1 Yes

2 No

ADULTBELT

nsm2 Lap3 Hone

1

AGE GROUP: 1 Infant;(Under 1 yr)

Small Child;(1-4 yrs)

Sub-teen;(5-12 yrs)

Teen;(13-19 yrs)

Adult(20 yrs and over)

64

1

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

4142

143

i44

•45

'46

47

48

149

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

6364

65

66

67

68

|69

(70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

[79

180

LICENSE HUHOC!

TOTA;. AGE GPQU-PASSENGERS T—lnfan-

(Write 2 Small CM;d1n

Number)3 Sub-Teen4 leer5 Adult

St>

l I41e

? Fercale

SEAT

] Fron*

3 Bac)

I ; ';

if

!

1

POMTIOK1 "IJriver "

Side? CPntPr3 Outboard

POSTURErrrt—2 Stand

« M e

i

lOCATIOK

\ snrt2 Floor3 l a p

OCCUPANT'5BACK

r-5in—2 Door3 fT-rson4 Non Sup.

OCCUPANT'S IN CHILD ADUIT \KHEE? RES,? BEIT_

T Forward . v 1 Bo*tl' i? R.C.3 L.C.^ Rear

i

! Nn2 lar \.1 Noi.e

i

AGE GROUP: 1 Infant; 2 Small Child; 3 Sub-teen; 4 Teen;(Under 1 yr) (U4 yrs) (5-12 yrs) (13-19 yrs)

5 Adult(20 yrs and over)

MOTORCYCLE - MOPED

OBSERVATION FORM

65

Observer

Intersection

Location No.

Day

Date

Month

Time Started

Conditions

12

1 Daylight

AMPM

2

City

1 Primary Road

2 Freeway Exit

3 Turnpike (Night)

4 Turnpike (Day)

Time Ended

1 City

2 Suburb

3 Rural

4 Rural

5 Turr

1 AM2 PM

1 Dry

2 Twilight 3 Night

2 Rain 3 Snow, Ice

111

i T

DRIVER1 HELMET ON2 HELMET OFF

; oi ii 02

i 031 04

05

, 06

' 07

' 03

09

10

11

12 [13

14

15

15

17

18 |

19 i

20 i

2122

PASSENGER* • IF MOTORCYCLE,1 HELMET ON2 HELMET OFF

(*IF NO PASSENGER,LEAVE SPACE BLANK)

LEAVE SPACE BLANK

• IF MOPED OR MOTOR-BIKE, RECORD "1"

1

1 2 5 •

25 i

23

29

i

i t 1i • i

J ; ;

! i

66

PASSENGER*

DP.IVEF1 HELMET ON

2 HELMET OFF

• IF MCORCYCuE.LEAVE SPACE B^Nt .1 HELMET 01.

2 HELMET OFF ',( * I F tiC PASSENGER, e IF MOPED OR MOTOR-

LEAVE SPACE BLANK) ; B IKE, RECORD " 1 "

34

35

36 '

37

38

39

40 !

41 :

42 :

4344

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57 1

58

59

60

61

6263 ;

54

65

6 6 i

67686 9 i

70

71

'' i

73

74 |

75 i

Contract No. DOT HS-7-01736 Contract Amt. $522,267

Documents